IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.65483/2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI M.MURTHY, S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT RAJESHWARI NAGAR, KENGERI HOBLI, MALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (By Sri DIWAKAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE 560009.
3. THE TASILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560009. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DT.24.6.2016 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub- division, Bangalore thereby allowing the suo motu proceedings instituted under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and directing that the name of present petitioner found in the RTC shall be deleted and in its place, name of State Government be entered free from all encumbrances.
2. According to petitioner, his vendor purchased the property bearing Sy.No.131/2 situated at Malagondanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk as per registered sale deed dated 05.05.1971 and the katha was transferred in the name of one Annayyappa S/o. Galappa. On 29.12.2002 said Annayappa executed a registered Will in favour of his children. Based on the said Will, katha was changed in the name of children of Annayappa. Thereafter, petitioner claims to have purchased the said property from one Nagaraj and Ambika vide registered sale deed dated 13.04.2004. RTC extracts pertaining to the said land were transferred in the name of petitioner.
3. Impugned proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on the report submitted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar stating that the land in question being a gomal land entries found in favour of the present petitioner in the revenue records were not genuine. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings based on the report of the Tahsildar invoking Section 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that records available did not disclose that there was any grant made in favour of any person in accordance with law and that though the land belonged to the Government, name of petitioner was illegally entered and therefore, the same deserved to be set aside by allowing the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition has been allowed and the name of petitioner found in the revenue records has been ordered to be deleted to be substituted by entering the name of the Government.
4. Leaned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to petitioner.
5. In the light of the above submission, I have carefully perused the impugned order. There is nothing to show that petitioner was served with notice of the proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner. Though a reference has been made in the order stating that the notice was issued to respondent and that he failed to establish his claim by appearing before him, in the absence of any record to show that notice of the proceedings had been indeed served on the petitioner or the members of his family, it cannot be held that petitioner had been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Commissioner.
6. In such circumstances, keeping in mind ends of justice and the need to comply with principles of natural justice impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-division, Bangalore, who shall provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections and to produce necessary documents in support of his defence. Thereafter, a considered order shall be passed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 01.03.2017.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VP